Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-s65px Total loading time: 0.752 Render date: 2021-03-08T04:41:48.833Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Identification of Blastocystis subtypes in clinical stool samples from Sao Paulo City, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2017

GESSICA B. MELO
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM/06), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
FABIANA M. PAULA
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM/06), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
FERNANDA M. MALTA
Affiliation:
Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM/07), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
CELINA W. MARUTA
Affiliation:
Departamento de Dermatologia, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
PAULO R. CRIADO
Affiliation:
Departamento de Dermatologia, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
VERA L. P. CASTILHO
Affiliation:
Seção de Parasitologia, Divisão do Laboratório Central do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
ELENICE M. N. GONÇALVES
Affiliation:
Seção de Parasitologia, Divisão do Laboratório Central do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
MARIA C. ESPIRITO SANTO
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM/06), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
RONALDO C. B. GRYSCHEK
Affiliation:
Laboratório de Investigação Médica (LIM/06), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil Instituto de Medicina Tropical, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Summary

Blastocystis sp. is a protozoan commonly found in human and animal stool samples. Several pathogenic and zoonotic aspects of this organism are still unknown. The aim of the present study was to investigate Blastocystis subtypes (STs) in samples from patients of the Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculdade de Medicina at the Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP), Brazil. Blastocystis sp.-positive stool samples diagnosed at the Section of Parasitology of the Central Laboratory (HC-FMUSP) were used for DNA isolation. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed using specific primers targeting the small-subunit rRNA gene. Direct DNA sequencing of the PCR products was performed and the DNA sequences were then aligned and compared with other sequences obtained from the GenBank database. Phylogenetic analysis was used to identify STs and determine the phylogenetic relationships between the sequences. Four STs were identified: ST1 (22·5%), ST2 (12·5%), ST3 (60%) and ST6 (5%). In conclusion, ST3 was the most prevalent ST among the human isolates followed by ST1. The present study is one of the few providing STs data from the human population in South America. Determining ST prevalence in human samples may contribute to the monitoring of Blastocystis sp. infection transmission in endemic regions.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017

INTRODUCTION

The high number of samples positive for Blastocystis sp., an organism that was rarely reported in routine parasitological diagnosis until three decades ago, has received increasing attention in recent years. Although, the pathogenic role of Blastocystis sp. is controversial, accumulating evidence from recent studies supports the idea that they constitute an emerging pathogen (Tan, Reference Tan2008; Tan et al. Reference Tan, Mirza, Teo, Wu and Macary2010). This enigmatic organism has also been identified in a wide range of animals. The taxonomic status of Blastocystis sp. has remained elusive until recently; phylogenetic studies based on small-subunit ribosomal DNA (SSU rRNA) have demonstrated that it is a member of phylum Stramenopiles (Silberman et al. Reference Silberman, Sogin, Leipe and Clark1996; Santín et al. Reference Santín, Gómez-Muñoz, Solano Aguilar and Fayer2011).

Blastocystis sp. is usually detected using conventional parasitological methods such as the direct method, concentration method with formalin–ether and stained smears (Stensvold et al. Reference Stensvold, Nielsen, Mølbak and Smith2008; Tan, Reference Tan2008). Culturing methods have been regarded as the gold standard for the detection of Blastocystis sp., because although these methods show high sensitivity (Yoshikawa et al. Reference Yoshikawa, Dogruman-AI, Turk, Kustimur, Balaban and Sultan2011; Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Qiao, Wu, Da, Zhao and Wei2012). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of Blastocystis DNA from cultures or feces is thought to be the most sensitive detection method (Tan, Reference Tan2008). DNA-based methods have been developed to identify genetic variation between Blastocystis sp. forms that are morphologically indistinguishable using a microscope (Alfellani et al. Reference Alfellani, Stensvold, Vidal-Lapiedra, Uche Onuoha, Fagbenro-Beyioku and Clark2013). Molecular studies have focused predominantly on determining the prevalence of Blastocystis subtypes (STs), as well as possible factors associated with pathogenicity (Tan et al. Reference Tan, Mirza, Teo, Wu and Macary2010). Studies using the sequence analysis of Blastocystis sp. small subunit ribosomal RNA genes (SSU rDNA) have demonstrated that there are approximately 17 different lineages, termed subtypes (ST1–ST17), isolates from mammals and birds (Wawrzyniak et al. Reference Wawrzyniak, Poirier, Viscogliosi, Dionigia, Texier, Delbac and El Alaoui2013). Human isolates have been shown to have a higher occurrence of STs 1–4, with limited presence of STs 5–9 (Stensvold et al. Reference Stensvold, Suresh, Tan, Thompson, Traub, Viscogliosi, Yoshikawa and Clark2007; Scanlan, Reference Scanlan2012; Alfellani et al. Reference Alfellani, Stensvold, Vidal-Lapiedra, Uche Onuoha, Fagbenro-Beyioku and Clark2013).

The molecular epidemiology of Blastocystis sp. infections remains unknown in many parts of the world. Recent studies have provided further information regarding ST distribution among human populations (Tan, Reference Tan2008; Alfellani et al. Reference Alfellani, Stensvold, Vidal-Lapiedra, Uche Onuoha, Fagbenro-Beyioku and Clark2013); however, very few studies have been conducted in Latin America (Santín et al. Reference Santín, Gómez-Muñoz, Solano Aguilar and Fayer2011). To date, a small number of studies subtyping Blastocystis (Malheiros et al. Reference Malheiros, Stensvold, Clark, Braga and Shaw2011; David et al. Reference David, Guimarães, Oliveira, Oliveira-Siqueira, Bittencourt, Nardi, Ribolla, Franco, Branco, Tosini, Bella, Pozio and Cacciò2015; Ramírez et al. Reference Ramírez, Sánchez, Hernández, Flórez, Bernal, Giraldo, Reyes, López, García, Cooper, Vicuña, Mongi and Casero2016) have been conducted in Brazil. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of Blastocystis STs in clinical stool samples from the Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculdade de Medicina de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP), Brazil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study population

This study was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital das Clínicas of the Faculdade de Medicina de São Paulo under protocol n°. 488·701. Sixty Blastocystis sp.-positive stool samples were selected based on the positivity in routine parasitological examinations conducted at the Section of Parasitology, Central Laboratory, HC-FMUSP, Brazil. The techniques employed at this laboratory include the Faust method, Lutz method and permanent-stained smears (Garcia, Reference Garcia2001), considering positivity in at least one of the parasitological methods. Fifteen Blastocystis sp.-negative stool samples, determined by the parasitological methods, and 15 stool samples positive for other parasite infections (Ascaris lumbricoides, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, Endolimax nana and Entamoeba coli) were used as controls. Once the parasitological techniques were performed, the stool samples were aliquoted and stored at −20 °C for subsequent DNA isolation.

DNA extraction

Approximately 200 mg of stool sample were washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline (0·01 m L−1, pH 7·2). DNA was extracted from the pellet using the commercial QIAamp® DNA stool MiniKit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany), according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA was eluted in 100 µL of elution buffer and quantified using a NanoDrop ND-1000 UV–VIS spectrophotometer v.3.2.1 (NanoDrop Technologies, Wilmington, DE, USA).

DNA amplification and sequencing

DNA amplification was performed by PCR using the primers RD5 (5′-ATC TGG TTG ATC CTG CCAG T-3′) and BhRDr (5′-GAG CTT TTT AAC TGC AAC AAC G-3′), located on SSU rRNA, as described by Scicluna et al. (Reference Scicluna, Tawari and Clark2006); these primers amplify a ~600 bp fragment. PCR were performed in a 10 µL volume containing ~50 ng µL−1 of DNA, 2·0 µg BSA, 0·2 mm each dNTP, 1·5 mm MgCl2, 2 pm of each primer, 1× PCR buffer and 1·25 U GoTaq ® DNA Polymerase (Promega Corporation, Madison, USA). PCR amplification was conducted with a Master cycler ep gradient S thermocycler (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) with the following conditions: initial denaturation step at 94 °C for 2 min; 30 cycles of 94 °C (denaturation) for 1 min, 61 °C (annealing) for 1 min and 72 °C for 1 min (extension); and a final extension step of 72 °C for 2 min. The PCR products were loaded on a 2% agarose gel containing Syber safe (Invitrogen™, Thermo Fisher Scientific Corporation, Waltham, USA) and subjected to electrophoresis in 1× TAE (Tris-acetate-EDTA) buffer. Positive and negative controls (DNA from positive cultures and PCR mix without DNA template, respectively) were included in each round of amplification.

PCR products were purified using of the ExoSAP enzyme (GE Healthcare, Piscataway, NJ, USA), according to the manufacturer's instructions, and then submitted to a sequencing reaction for incorporation of labelled ddNTPs (dideoxynucleotides) using the ABI PRISM® BigDyeTM Terminator kit (Applied Biosystems, Thermo Fisher Scientific Corporation, Waltham, USA). Direct DNA sequencing was performed using an automated ABI 3500 sequencer (Applied Biosystems).

Positive controls

The positive controls consisted of approximately 200 mg of Blastocystis sp.-positive stool samples cultured as described by Zerpa et al. (Reference Zerpa, Huichol, Náquira and Espinoza2000). The cultures were maintained at 37 °C and the pellets obtained by centrifugation at 12, 400  g for 1 min were examined using Lugol staining smear with optical microscopy (Olympus CX 41) after 24 and 48 h.

For control testing of extracted DNA, all samples without amplification were tested using universal primers (forward: 18SEUDIR 5′-TCTGCCCTAACTACTTTCGATGG-3′ and reverse: 18SEUINV 5′-TAATTTGGCCTGCGCCTG-3′) that amplify a 140-bp region of the eukaryotic 18S ribosomal RNA gene, as described by Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Cuttell, Bielefeldt-Ohmann, Inpankaew, Owen and Traub2013).

Subtyping analysis

Sequence analysis was performed using BioEdit software (Biological Sequence Alignment Editor http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/bioedit/page2.html). Sequence alignments were conducted using CLUSTAL W and aligned with Blastocystis sequences from GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/GenBank/tbl2asn2). Phylogenetic analyses were performed using MEGA 5 and the neighbour-joining method with 1000 bootstrap replication for phylogenetic tree construction. The Proteromonas lacertae sequence (accession number U37108) was used as the outgroup. Sequences were compared with Blastocystis SSU rDNA sequences available from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) using the BLAST program (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool). Additionally, Blastocystis STs were identified by determining the exact match or closest similarity against all known Blastocystis STs using www.pubmlst.org/blastocystis.

RESULTS

Of the 60 clinical stool samples positive for Blastocystis sp. by parasitological methods, 47 were positive by PCR (78% positivity). PCR positivity was higher compared with other parasitological methods: 8% positivity by Faust, 35% by Lutz and lower than permanent-stained smears (87%) (Table 1). The expected DNA fragment (~600 bp) was detected in all PCR-positive samples and no DNA amplification of the target fragment was observed in the negative samples and stool samples positive for other parasite infections.

Table 1. Comparison of Parasitological methods and conventional PCR (cPCR) for detection of Blastocytis in the stool samples

All PCR positive samples were sequenced and those that obtained good quality (n = 40) were compared with Blastocystis sequences deposited in the GenBank database (BLAST) and exhibited 98–100% similarity. Seven sequences were excluded from the analysis, since they presented low-quality possibly due to poor amplification of DNA.

The phylogenetic analysis was performed and four different STs were identified (Fig. 1). ST1 was found in nine samples (22·5%), ST2 was present in five samples (12·5%), ST3, the most common ST, was found in 24 samples (60%) and ST6 was present in two samples (5%). Based on information available at www.pubmlst.org/blastocystis, three distinct alleles were identified within ST3 (alleles 34, 36 and 37), two in ST2 (alleles 12 and 71) and one in ST1 and ST6, corresponding to alleles 4 and 134, respectively (Table 2).

Fig. 1. Phylogenetic analysis of Blastocystis sp. SSU rDNA sequences (~600 bp) generated in this study (identified by triangles) and reference sequences from GenBank (identified by accession number and subtypes). The phylogenetic tree was constructed using the neighbour-joining method. Bootstrap values are based on 1000 replicates. Bootstrap values of <70% are not shown.

Table 2. Distribution of Blastocystis SSU rDNA alleles retrieved from the samples on each subtytpes

a Corresponds to the number of samples identified on the phylogenetic tree.

DISCUSSION

Blastocystis sp. is the most common intestinal parasites found in human feces and are considered an emerging parasite with a worldwide distribution (Tan, Reference Tan2008). The clinical features associated with blastocystosis range from non-specific intestinal symptoms to cutaneous disorders and the severity of these diseases varies from acute to chronic infections, a possible reason for these differences is genetic diversity (Tan, Reference Tan2008; Tan et al. Reference Tan, Mirza, Teo, Wu and Macary2010; Scanlan, Reference Scanlan2012). Although to date, no specific association has been observed between clinical findings and Blastocystis STs (Özyurt et al. Reference Özyurt, Kurt, Mølbak, Nielsen, Haznedaroglu and Stensvold2008).

A variety of parasitological techniques can be used to detect Blastocystis sp. in clinical samples (Tan, Reference Tan2008). However, this technique has low sensitivity, leading to misdiagnosis or underestimation of the true prevalence of Blastocystis sp. (Scanlan, Reference Scanlan2012; Alfellani et al. Reference Alfellani, Stensvold, Vidal-Lapiedra, Uche Onuoha, Fagbenro-Beyioku and Clark2013). Moreover, this parasite appears in polymorphic forms and variable size in stool samples, further hindering its diagnosis. PCR is an alternative method used to detect Blastocystis sp. in epidemiological studies, offering increased sensitivity and specificity as well as rapid diagnosis (Parkar et al. Reference Parkar, Traub, Kumar, Mungthin, Vitali, Leelayoova, Morris and Thompson2007). The results of the present study demonstrate that PCR was more efficient than the Faust and Lutz methods in the detection of Blastocystis sp. Another advantage of using molecular techniques compared with conventional methods is that they can provide more information in terms of genetic variability and zoonotic relationship (Parkar et al. Reference Parkar, Traub, Kumar, Mungthin, Vitali, Leelayoova, Morris and Thompson2007).

In this study, 60 samples were diagnosed as Blastocystis sp. positive using parasitological technical (considered the Faust method, Lutz method and permanent-stained smears), while the PCR technique confirmed the presence of the DNA parasite in only 47 stool samples. Possible reasons for this difference are PCR inhibition stool samples, degradation of DNA due to extended storage time, or misidentification by light microscopy (Forsell et al. Reference Forsell, Granlund, Stensvold, Clark and Evengard2012; Mattiucci et al. Reference Mattiucci, Crisafi, Gabrielli, Paoletti and Cancrini2016). However, negative PCR results were not caused by inhibition of the amplification by fecal components, because amplification using universal primers was observed in all samples.

The suggested criteria for reporting infection intensity by parasitological methods are the observation of five or more parasites per high-powered field (×400) for wet mounts or under oil immersion (×1000) using permanent-stained smears (Tan, Reference Tan2008). Other studies have included more detailed reports of parasite abundance (Leder et al. Reference Leder, Hellard, Sinclair, Fairley and Wolfe2005; Özyurt et al. Reference Özyurt, Kurt, Mølbak, Nielsen, Haznedaroglu and Stensvold2008) and quantified parasite abundance using definitions such as rare (one to two parasites in every 10 high-power fields), few to moderate (one parasite in every one to five high-power fields), and abundant (five or more parasites per high-power field) (Leder et al. Reference Leder, Hellard, Sinclair, Fairley and Wolfe2005). In the present study, 13 of the 60 Blastocystis sp. positive samples identified using parasitological methods failed to produce Blastocystis-specific bands by PCR, five of which were reported as rare, four as few to moderate and four as suggestive forms by parasitological analyses. Mattiucci et al. (Reference Mattiucci, Crisafi, Gabrielli, Paoletti and Cancrini2016) have suggested that negative PCR results may be due to the amount of Blastocystis DNA being lower than the detection level.

Blastocystis in mammals and birds are subdivided into 17 STs, nine of which (ST1–ST9) have been found in humans (Stensvold and Clark, Reference Stensvold and Clark2016). In 2007, a consensus of Blastocystis terminology was proposed, based in comparison with representative sequences of all known STs (Stensvold et al. Reference Stensvold, Suresh, Tan, Thompson, Traub, Viscogliosi, Yoshikawa and Clark2007). The ST distribution in the present study was quite similar to that found in other countries. Indeed, the studies reported thus far indicate that the majority of human infections with Blastocystis sp. are attributable to ST3 isolates (Özyurt et al. Reference Özyurt, Kurt, Mølbak, Nielsen, Haznedaroglu and Stensvold2008; Meloni et al. Reference Meloni, Sanciu, Poirier, El Alaoui, Chabé, Delhaes, Dei-Cas, Delbac, Luigi Fiori, Di Cave and Viscogliosi2011; Forsell et al. Reference Forsell, Granlund, Stensvold, Clark and Evengard2012; Ramírez et al. Reference Ramírez, Sánchez, Hernández, Flórez, Bernal, Giraldo, Reyes, López, García, Cooper, Vicuña, Mongi and Casero2016), as was the case in the present study (60%). It is suggested that dominance of ST3 may be related to its human origin (Özyurt et al. Reference Özyurt, Kurt, Mølbak, Nielsen, Haznedaroglu and Stensvold2008; Meloni et al. Reference Meloni, Sanciu, Poirier, El Alaoui, Chabé, Delhaes, Dei-Cas, Delbac, Luigi Fiori, Di Cave and Viscogliosi2011; Yoshikawa et al. Reference Yoshikawa, Koyama, Tsuchiya and Takami2016).

An analysis of samples from indigenous regions of Brazil conducted by Malheiros et al. (Reference Malheiros, Stensvold, Clark, Braga and Shaw2011) showed different results from those of the current study; ST1 was the dominant ST identified (41%). It is possible that ST distribution is affected by the ethnic origin of the population and the limited contact between indigenous groups and people in other communities. ST1 and ST2 are also common in different regions in human isolates, while the other STs are found only sporadically (Alfellani et al. Reference Alfellani, Stensvold, Vidal-Lapiedra, Uche Onuoha, Fagbenro-Beyioku and Clark2013). It is important to note the absence of ST4 in our study, similar to the results of other studies conducted in South America (Malheiros et al. Reference Malheiros, Stensvold, Clark, Braga and Shaw2011; David et al. Reference David, Guimarães, Oliveira, Oliveira-Siqueira, Bittencourt, Nardi, Ribolla, Franco, Branco, Tosini, Bella, Pozio and Cacciò2015). In contrast, ST4 is observed with high frequency in continental Europe and the UK (Forsell et al. Reference Forsell, Granlund, Stensvold, Clark and Evengard2012; Alfellani et al. Reference Alfellani, Stensvold, Vidal-Lapiedra, Uche Onuoha, Fagbenro-Beyioku and Clark2013; Mattiucci et al. Reference Mattiucci, Crisafi, Gabrielli, Paoletti and Cancrini2016).

Another important finding of this study is the presence of ST6, rarely detected in human isolates. ST6 is considered as an avian ST, which points to a possible zoonotic origin (Mattiucci et al. Reference Mattiucci, Crisafi, Gabrielli, Paoletti and Cancrini2016). The reported differences in the number of STs identified in human populations as well as their relative abundance might indicate different reservoirs and transmission routes (Noël et al. Reference Noël, Dufernez, Gerald, Edgcomb, Delgado-Viscogliosi, Ho, Singh, Wintjens, Sogin, Capron, Pierce, Zenner and Viscogliosi2005; Meloni et al. Reference Meloni, Sanciu, Poirier, El Alaoui, Chabé, Delhaes, Dei-Cas, Delbac, Luigi Fiori, Di Cave and Viscogliosi2011).

In the present study, alleles 34, 36 and 37 were detected in ST3. This is in agreement with observations reported by David et al. (Reference David, Guimarães, Oliveira, Oliveira-Siqueira, Bittencourt, Nardi, Ribolla, Franco, Branco, Tosini, Bella, Pozio and Cacciò2015) and Mattiucci et al. (Reference Mattiucci, Crisafi, Gabrielli, Paoletti and Cancrini2016). In contrast to our findings, Ramírez et al. (Reference Ramírez, Sánchez, Hernández, Flórez, Bernal, Giraldo, Reyes, López, García, Cooper, Vicuña, Mongi and Casero2016) showed a high diversity of alleles from ST1, ST2 and ST3. It is important to highlight that the comparison SSU rDNA alleles within the same ST can help determining the differences between the strains, which may possibly contribute to the identification of the potential for zoonotic transmission and pathogenic strains.

The present study is one of the few to analyse the incidence of Blastocystis STs in South America. Thus, our results are very important for understanding the geographic distribution of STs in Latin America. Moreover, these findings provide an initial molecular analysis that will enable future examination of unknown epidemiological aspects.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank all the patients who provided the stool samples used in this study. We are very grateful to Ms Magali Orban for her technical assistance in conducting the parasitological analysis of fecal samples.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

This research was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP 2015/18213-6), Brazil.

References

Alfellani, M., Stensvold, C. R., Vidal-Lapiedra, A., Uche Onuoha, E., Fagbenro-Beyioku, A. and Clark, G. (2013). Variable geographic distribution of Blastocystis subtypes and its potential implications. Acta Tropica 126, 1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, E. B., Guimarães, S., Oliveira, A. P., Oliveira-Siqueira, T. C. G., Bittencourt, G. N., Nardi, A. R. M., Ribolla, P. E. M., Franco, R. M. B., Branco, N., Tosini, F., Bella, A., Pozio, E. and Cacciò, S. M. (2015). Molecular characterization of intestinal protozoa in two poor communities in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. Parasite & Vectors 8, 103115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsell, J., Granlund, M., Stensvold, C. R., Clark, G. C. and Evengard, B. (2012). Subtype analysis of Blastocystis isolates in Swedish patients. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology Infectious Diseases 31, 16891696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, L. S. (2001). Diagnostic Medical Parasitology, 4th Edn. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
Leder, K., Hellard, M., Sinclair, M. I., Fairley, C. K. and Wolfe, R. (2005). No correlation between clinical symptoms and Blastocystis hominis in immunocompetent individuals. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 20, 13901394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malheiros, A. F., Stensvold, C. R., Clark, C. G., Braga, G. B. and Shaw, J. J. (2011). Short report: molecular characterization of Blastocystis obtained from members of the indigenous Tapirapé ethnic group from the Brazilian Amazon region, Brazil. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 85, 10501053.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattiucci, S., Crisafi, B., Gabrielli, S., Paoletti, M. and Cancrini, G. (2016). Molecular epidemiology and genetic diversity of Blastocystis infection in humans in Italy. Epidemiology and Infection 144, 635646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meloni, D., Sanciu, G., Poirier, P., El Alaoui, H., Chabé, M., Delhaes, L., Dei-Cas, E., Delbac, F., Luigi Fiori, P., Di Cave, D. and Viscogliosi, E. (2011). Molecular subtyping of Blastocystis sp. isolates from symptomatic patients in Italy. Parasitology Research 109, 613619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noël, C., Dufernez, F., Gerald, D., Edgcomb, V. P., Delgado-Viscogliosi, P., Ho, L. C., Singh, M., Wintjens, R., Sogin, M. L., Capron, M., Pierce, R., Zenner, L. and Viscogliosi, E. (2005). Molecular phylogenies of Blastocystis isolates from different hosts: implications for genetic diversity, identification of species, and zoonosis. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 43, 348355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Özyurt, M., Kurt, O., Mølbak, K., Nielsen, H. V., Haznedaroglu, T. and Stensvold, C. R. (2008). Molecular epidemiology of Blastocystis infections in Turkey. Parasitology International 57, 300306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkar, U., Traub, R. J., Kumar, S., Mungthin, S., Vitali, S., Leelayoova, S., Morris, K. and Thompson, R. C. (2007). Direct characterization of Blastocystis from faeces by PCR and evidence of zoonotic potential. Parasitology 134, 359367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramírez, J. D., Sánchez, A., Hernández, C., Flórez, C., Bernal, M. C., Giraldo, J. C., Reyes, P., López, M. C., García, L., Cooper, P. J., Vicuña, Y., Mongi, F. and Casero, R. D. (2016). Geographic distribution of human Blastocystis subtypes in South America. Infection Genetics and Evolution 41, 3235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santín, M., Gómez-Muñoz, M. T., Solano Aguilar, G. and Fayer, R. (2011). Development of a new PCR protocol to detect and subtype Blastocystis spp. From humans and animals. Parasitology Research 109, 205212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scanlan, P. D. (2012). Blastocystis: past pitfalls and future perspectives. Trends in Parasitology 28, 327334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scicluna, S. M., Tawari, B. and Clark, C. G. (2006). DNA barcoding of Blastocystis . Protist 157, 7785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silberman, J. D., Sogin, M. L., Leipe, D. D. and Clark, C. G. (1996). Human parasite finds taxonomic home. Nature 380, 398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stensvold, C. R. and Clark, C. G. (2016). Current status of Blastocystis: a personal view. Parasitology International 65, 763771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stensvold, C. R., Suresh, G. K., Tan, K. S., Thompson, R. C., Traub, R. J., Viscogliosi, E., Yoshikawa, H. and Clark, C. G. (2007). Terminology for Blastocystis subtypes – a consensus. Trends in Parasitology 23, 9396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stensvold, C. R., Nielsen, H. V., Mølbak, K. and Smith, H. V. (2008). Pursuing the clinical significance of Blastocystis – diagnostic limitations. Trends in Parasitology 25, 2329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, K. S. (2008). New insights on classification, identification and clinical relevance of Blastocystis spp. Clinical Microbiology Reviews 21, 639665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, K. S., Mirza, H., Teo, J. D., Wu, B. and Macary, P. A. (2010). Current views on the clinical relevance of Blastocystis spp. Current Infectious Disease Reports 12, 2835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W., Cuttell, L., Bielefeldt-Ohmann, H., Inpankaew, T., Owen, H. and Traub, R. J. (2013). Diversity of Blastocystis subtypes in dogs in different geographical settings. Parasite & Vectors 6, 215219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wawrzyniak, I., Poirier, P., Viscogliosi, E., Dionigia, M., Texier, C., Delbac, F. and El Alaoui, H. (2013). Blastocystis, an unrecognized parasite: an overview of pathogenesis and diagnosis. Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease 1, 167178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshikawa, H., Dogruman-AI, F., Turk, S., Kustimur, S., Balaban, N. and Sultan, N. (2011). Evaluation of DNA extraction kits for molecular diagnosis of human Blastocystis subtypes from fecal samples. Parasitology Research 109, 10451050.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshikawa, H., Koyama, Y., Tsuchiya, E. and Takami, K. (2016). Blastocystis phylogeny among various isolates from humans to insects. Parasitology International 65, 750759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zerpa, R. L., Huichol, L., Náquira, C. and Espinoza, I. (2000). A simplified culture method for Blastocystis hominis . Revista Mexicana de Patología Clínica 47, 1719.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Qiao, J., Wu, X., Da, R., Zhao, L. and Wei, Z. (2012). In vitro culture of Blastocystis hominis in three liquid media and its usefulness in the diagnosis of blastocystosis. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 16, 2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 177
Total number of PDF views: 456 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st March 2017 - 8th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Identification of Blastocystis subtypes in clinical stool samples from Sao Paulo City, Brazil
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Identification of Blastocystis subtypes in clinical stool samples from Sao Paulo City, Brazil
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Identification of Blastocystis subtypes in clinical stool samples from Sao Paulo City, Brazil
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *